ORDER :

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition have called in question the memorandum No. PTCL/77/11-12 dated 06.09.2011, of the third respondent-Tahsildhar, Mysuru Taluk, in respect of land bearing survey No. 93/17 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in a proceedings instituted under provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).

2. Parties will be referred as the purchasers (petitioners) and the legal heirs of the original grantee (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, land in survey No. 93/17 situated at Belavathha Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, was granted to one Mahadevaiah on 21.01.1942, with a condition of non-alienation. In violation of the conditions, Mahadevaiah -the original grantee sold the land on 03.10.1951, to one Smt. Kannamma. The said Act came into force on 01.01.1979. On the said Act coming into force, the legal heirs of the Mahadevaiah, appeared to have instituted proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1989. The Assistant Commissioner is said to have allowed the claim of the legal heirs of the original grantee by his order dated 21.09.1990.

4. After the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.09.1990, nothing happens. For the first time, in the year 2008. Certain proceedings are taken up by the third respondent-Tahsildhar seeking to implement the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.09.1990, after 21 years of its passage i.e., 06.09.2011, directing that the land should be restored to the government and later on, it shall be handed over to the legal heir of the original grantee. It is this memorandum that is called in question by the petitioners in this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri A. Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Savithramma, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, Sri G.H. Srinivas, learned counsel for fifth and sixth respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been in possession of the property since they purchased the same from the purchaser of the original grantee. There are no proceedings instituted by the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land. It is for the first time, the second respondent seeking to implement the order dated 21.09.1990, instituted proceedings and passed an order on 29.12.2012, directing resumption of land.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for fifth and sixth respondents-legal heirs of the original grantee would submit that the land admittedly sold in violation of the conditions of the grant as the land granted was permanently non-alienable, merely because the proceedings for resumption is not instituted, will not give a right to the petitioners to hold on to the land.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also submit that various correspondences post the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner would clearly indicate that the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1990, directing resumption of land. The purchasers who are in possession of the land having not challenged the same cannot derive any right from the fact that they were in possession of the land illegally.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The land in survey No. 93/17 situated at Belavathha Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, was granted to one Mahadevaiah on 21.01.1942, is not dispute and the granted land was sold on 03.10.1951, is also a fact which is not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the proceedings instituted by the legal heirs of the original grantee in the year 1989-90. The chain of events that have taken place after the alleged passage of the order of the Assistant Commissioner creates cert